CHITTARANJAN GHARAI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-1-33
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 31,1996

Chittaranjan Gharai And Another Appellant
VERSUS
State of West Bengal and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.)The writ petitioners who are three in number have filed this writ application, inter alia, for the following reliefs:
"Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to remove the respondent No. 4 from the post of administrator of Baroj High School, P. O. Baroj, P. S. Chandipur, District-Midnapore".

(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. By reason of an order passed by this Court an Administrator was appointed in the year 1983 by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. He holds the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools. His term was extended by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education from time to time and from a document produced by Mr. B. G. Manna, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 if appears that it was extended upto 31-12-95 by an order dated 11-8-95. It is stated that thereafter his term has also extended. In the writ application, the petitioners alleged that various irregularities have been committed by the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. It is stated that the said Administrator did not hold election for a long time and in Feb., 1995 a purported election has been held consisting of several irregularities in the programme. Details of such irregularities have been stated in paragraph 11 onwards in the writ application. In this situation a prayer was made questioning the said election.
(3.)Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submits that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 8-5-95 suffers from an error in so far as the learned Judge did not take into consideration the grievance of the petitioners as regards malfunctioning of the Administrator in the matter of management of the affairs of the School. He further submits that the appointment of teaching and nonteaching staff are being made illegally which are also subject-matter of some writ applications pending before this Court. It appears that the petitioner had filed a detailed representation on 27-4-95 before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Tamluk, Midnapore and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 8-5-95 a learned single Judge of this Court directed the D.l. of Schools (S.E.) to dispose of the said representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the said order.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.